|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 21 |
May 20 |
Comment |
If one intends upon submitting an image into a completion in which there is a requirement that all of the image content must be your own work, then I believe that your image would not be appropriate. However, this says nothing about the quality of the image. Not all of Photography needs to fall within the narrow (and often arbitrary) confines of the completions we enter. The restrictions have their place in competition, but perhaps less so in creative photography. I would at least acknowledge the source of element that were not my own, but your composition and final result are wonderful. |
May 19th |
1 comment - 0 replies for Group 21
|
| 65 |
May 20 |
Reply |
I generally back up a bit and rely upon some cropping if I wish to exclude some of the background. This also has the benefit of allowing just a bit more depth of field when I select stopped down apertures (F/16 or so). I would rather try for a sharp image that I need to crop as opposed to a tight shot that may be a bit soft with the outlying droplets. If I get too tight I fall prey to the "lack of depth of field" that impacts a lot of our magnified images. To focus I place a socket wench head, or a bolt in the water basin, under where the drops will land, confirm that the drops hit the bolt directly on the top, pre-focus on the bolt head (manually), and then remove the bolt. Now my camera is pre-focused to as close as I can guess where the drop collision will occur. After all of that, I still need a bit of luck to get a sharp shot. So I take a lot of images and delete most of them |
May 24th |
| 65 |
May 20 |
Reply |
These types of images do required a surprising amount of processing. First, you are correct in that I did move the upper light pink rock (and it's reflection) up just a bit to improve the subject separation. Here I used Photoshop to cut out the moved area, place it on a separate layer, moved the new layer up a bit, and cloned in the background were the original rock was present. I could have also used the "Content Aware Move" tool if I could control the background content the tool would add. I then separately selected the rocks, reflections and background, and edited them independently. In doing so I could address some of the subtle halos the were present around some of the rocks, and intensifying the detail in the rocks and their reflections. I find that images in which the reflections are subtly darkened also look better (to me at least). I find that generating the stacked image is just the start, and follow-up editing is required to make the image special. |
May 24th |
| 65 |
May 20 |
Comment |
This image is of course more that just splash photography, and capturing water drop collisions is a far greater challenge that simple splashes (which can be beautiful in their own right). There is a wonderful energy captured within this image. I wish you would have related more about how the images was collects. For example, where did the color come from, and how did you get the separation of the central jet from the base. Teach us all a bit more as to what did or did not work. What were you trying to capture here? Did you succeed? |
May 19th |
| 65 |
May 20 |
Comment |
This image has a real "up close and personal" feel to it, and kudos for making that attempt. Here we are drawn to the eyes and forehead, and here they are quite sharp. The next place my eye goes to though, are the feet, and I tend not to dwell on the head, which detracts from your "up close and personal" (or perhaps "in your face") intent. I think that to be most effective, more of the face and mouth parts should be in focus and less of the feet. I realize that this is easier said than done, but that is what may be required to be more compelling. Remember, that second to tonal attributes (bright and dark areas) our eye is next drawn to in focus sharp areas of an image. |
May 19th |
| 65 |
May 20 |
Comment |
A very impressive and effective high-key presentation. This image has a real stylistic flair to it that is promulgated by the rough noisy texture within the blossom. To my eye it seems just a bit unbalanced, and I would be tempted to lose a bit to the white empty space at the top of the image.
|
May 19th |
| 65 |
May 20 |
Comment |
I am enjoying how in this image the subject appears to emerge out of the dark background. That is one of the motifs that I seem to be attracted to. The detail and sharpness is fine, and I love the colors and composition. I do fine that the hot spots on the lower structures are a bit distracting, and I would have been tempted to clone this away. I do like the detail of the greenery that frames the central bloom, and as such am less impressed by the edits suggested and demonstrate by Peter. If this were my image I might try darkening ever so slightly the whitish bright areas of the bloom and would have added a bit of micro contrast in that area to both tone down the area and to bring out the structure that you have worked so hard to give us. |
May 19th |
| 65 |
May 20 |
Comment |
An interesting image, in that you have given us immense detail with a subject that in places has little to no detail, and I love it. I also like how you have positioned the subject to allow interesting light fall-off. To my eye, that adds a lot of character to the image. I do find that the scattered bright spots are distracting, and I would have cloned those away, especially in the face, throat and chest areas. These distractions len=d a feeling of a distressed image, but nothing else in the image supports this "feel". |
May 19th |
| 65 |
May 20 |
Reply |
Actually in this image I added a bit of texture to breakup an otherwise smooth background. I thought that this added just a bit more character to the image. |
May 19th |
5 comments - 3 replies for Group 65
|
6 comments - 3 replies Total
|
